Patna High Court:<\/strong>Challenging the order of the lower court rejecting the impleadment of the petitioner as a party in terms of Order I Rule 10 of CPC \u00a0the petitioner before this Court had asked for relief that she should be allowed to be arrayed as a party because a legal right had accrued due to the registered sale deed between the petitioner and the sole defendant (the respondent in the present case), which the petitioner is bound to defend. The learned counsel for the respondent controverted by justifying that the petitioner is neither a necessary party nor a proper party,and no third party was present during the course of negotiation and hence the petitioner should not be allowed to implead as a party.<\/p>\n In the present case, respondent no. 2 had executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner with respect to a disputed land. Pronouncing the decision A.K. Trivedi J., set aside the impugned order and allowed the petitioner, a subsequent purchaser, to be impleaded as a party. The Court\u00a0 relied on Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd <\/em>, (2013) 5 SCC 397<\/a>, wherein the present aspect i.e., presence of purchaser during course of suit filed under Specific Performance of Contract Act, had been considered and it was noted that, \u201cin a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as a party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation\u201d. The Court further relied on the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC which empowers the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary or proper for effective adjudication of the case allowing the subsequent purchaser to implead as a party. The Court while observing that the present case is not a lis pendens as per Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act as the event had already occurred before filing of the suit, allowed the petitioner to be impleaded as a party to the suit. [Raj Kumari Chaudharain v. Ratan Kumar Mishra,<\/em> 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 51<\/a>, <\/strong>decided on 18\/03\/2016]<\/p>\n